CATALOGUE 


OF 


A LOAN EXHIBITION 


OF 


ENGLISH PAINTINGS 


DETROIT INSTITUTE OF ARTS 
~~ JANUARY 18th to 3ist 


1926 








THE 
SECOND LOAN EXHIBITION 


OF 


OLD MASTERS 


British Paintings 
of the 
Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries 





mabe DETROIT INSTITUTE OF ARTS 
January 18th to 31st 
1926 





FOREWORD 


FEXHE second exhibition of fifty Old Masters from American 

private collections aims to give an idea of the greatness of 
English X VIII century art in the same way that the first exhibition 
of last year gave of Dutch art of the XVII century. It is antici- 
pated that the present exhibition—the best of its kind as we believe 
ever shown in an American museum—will be even more popular 
than that of last year; for English art of the great period is a century 
nearer to us than Dutch art and has perhaps won for itself a greater 
fame with the art-loving public in general than any other field 
of early painting, thanks to their artists’ highly developed sense for 
decorative quality and their expression of charm and beauty in 
portraiture. In this country in particular the influence of early 
English architecture and decoration is still so much alive that the 
admiration for English painting, which forms an integral part of 
them, is only natural wherever culture becomes an important factor 
in life. This may account for the fact that it was possible to draw 
for this exhibition a much larger number of works from Detroit 
homes than for the one of last year, some of them forming a part 
of the earliest collections in the city, gathered as long ago as fifteen 
or twenty years; others being acquisitions of very recent date, 
coincident with the revival of art interest in Detroit created by the 
erection of the new museum. 

As in last year’s exhibition, it has been the endeavor to select 
only works of high order, so that the public taste may be directed 
at once to the highest form of art. The concentration upon the 
most representative period of English art—that from 1770 to 1830 
—seemed therefore necessary, and from this flourishing period only 
the greatest masters were selected: in portraiture the two trios, 
Gainsborough, Reynolds and Romney, and—-a few decades later 
—Hoppner, Lawrence and Raeburn; and in landscape Constable 
and Turner. For comparison only, and to give an idea of the source 
of English portrait painting, the full-length portrait by Van Dyck, 
painted in England during his last and most influential period there, 
has been added. 

Gainsborough, who regarded himself as the truest follower of 
Van Dyck, may be linked with him over the centuries, although 
of all English portraitists he may be said to be equally as original 
and independent in style as Van Dyck. His incomparable manner, 
which combines French XVIII century elegance with English 
straightforwardness and precision of style, is most admirably 


represented in the series of five portraits, among them the splendid 
full-length portrait of Anne, Duchess of Hamilton, a work of extra- 
ordinarily subtle color combination. The two double portraits of 
the Villebovs and the Goddard children (the latter with its sketchy 
character a work of highly artistic quality and the last work which 
Gainsborough painted) show his rare ability in solving the problem 
of grouping two figures in one composition in a perfectly natural 
manner; while the full-length portrait of Richard Savage and the 
bust of Richard Jodrell show how wrong is the opinion that Gains- 
borough is less remarkable in his portraits of men, for in spacious- 
ness of composition, fascination of color and spirited freedom of 
technic, nothing more brilliant could be conceived. How great 
Gainsborough was as a landscape painter is proved by his Landscape 
with a Bridge, which may be said to be one of the masterpieces of 
landscape painting, combining as it does a most modern subjective 
treatment of surface with the grandeur and style of Claude Lorrain 
and an indescribable spiritual quality of its own. - 

While Gainsborough is always true to his century, we often feel 
in Reynolds a closer relationship to masters of earlier periods: to 
Rembrandt, for instance, in his pasty technic and softness of line, 
and to the great Italian masters of the High Renaissance in the 
arrangement of his compositions. This may be said especially of 
his Holy Family, with its decided Raffaelesque influence in compo- 
sition and Titianesque style in execution. Most original, on the 
other hand, do we find him in his portraits of children, a type of 
portraiture which is one of the prides of the English school of the 
XVIII century, of which he was the creator. The Strawberry Girl, 
famous through the engraving by Watson, is an enchanting example 
of his more imaginative, genre-iike representation of children, while 
the portrait of Theresa Parker shows the artist as the portrayer of 
the charm of the beautifully dressed children of the English aristoc- 
racy of the period, with all the naiveté of their behaviour. 

The third great master of the earlier phase of English XVIII 
century portrait painting, George Romney, is represented in all 
the aspects of his delightful art by the twelve portraits in the 
exhibition. The broad and clear lines of his style, his ability to 
build up his compositions in obvious geometric patterns by reducing 
the objects to large simple forms, give to his full-length pictures a 
monumental aspect which is often very impressive. How fresco- 
like, for instance, is the composition of Walter Tempest, almost 
reminding one of a relief of classical art, the broad lines of the horse 
being beautifully combined with the fine, bow-like curves of the 


silhouette of the boy! How grandly conceived is the portrait of 
Sheridan, expressing in the great sweeping lines the brilliant flow 
of words of this great orator! And what dignity and composure is 
expressed in his portraits of women like Barbara, Countess of 
Donegall and Lady Beauchamp-Proctor! With the classical aspect 
of his compositions, the statuesque quality of his figures and the 
broadness of his technic, Romney often combines a wonderful 
richness of local colours, full of transparency and depth of tone. 
What a beautiful combination of green, red and yellow in the 
Sheridan! What a glowing scarlet in the Kirkpatrick and the 
Thomas Grove, and what a rich dark blue in the portrait of Turner! 
In looking over the series of his exhibited works it seems astonishing 
that he was able to give to women, men and children alike such an 
exceptional regularity of features, always with beautifully curved 
lips, straight noses with small nostrils and the ever fascinating 
large eyes. Did he flatter his models or did he select unusually 
handsome persons for his sitters? Yet they belonged to all social 
classes, to the bourgeois as well as the aristocracy. And how closely 
his interests were connected with the literary and theatrical world, 
even our exhibition may prove, where we find such portraits as 
the ones of Oliver Goldsmith, the author of The Vicar of Wakefield; 
Richard Sheridan who wrote the School for Scandal and William 
Beckford, the author of Vathek; or the portrait of Lady Hamilton 
in one of her effective theatrical poses as ‘‘Mirth.”’ 

Compared with the work of this triumvirate, the portraits of 
the younger generation—Hoppner and Lawrence — show the begin- 
ning of the art of the new century, with the less reserved position 
of the figures, looser composition and technic and still more pro- 
nounced pictorial tendencies. The landscapes in the backgrounds 
also become more realistic, forming more closely an integral part 
of the composition, demonstrating that the time of the great 
landscape artists, especially of Constable, is at hand. Hoppner 
and Lawrence, both represented in our exhibition in a more ade- 
quate way than they can be seen in even the public collections in 
England, rival one another in pleasantness of expression, natural- 
ness of pose and brillianey of color effects. When we know that 
Hoppner is said to have been a rather cranky and spiteful person, 
it is a curious contrast that it is just he who is able to give to his 
models a gaiety and enjoyment in life that is hardly to be surpassed. 
Could the joy of youth be better expressed than in his Tambourine 
Girl or the portrait of Charlotte Chetwynd? Or the sweetness of 
beautiful society girls more enchantingly portrayed than in the two 


portraits of the Beresford sisters, the one in pink, the other in light 
blue? These two masterpieces of his art show his characteristic 
preference for a light key of color, especially the pink tones, which 
go so well with the bright faces of his beautiful sitters. 

Lawrence generally builds up his compositions in stronger con- 
trasts of ight and shade, developing the outlines of his figures 
from a deeper bluish background and replacing the pink of Hoppner 
with carmine, which often forms color combinations with black 
and white, most brilliantly illustrated in the portraits of Mrs. 
Thomson and her Child, and Mrs. Stratton, two of his masterpieces. 
In prettiness, his dark eyed and dark haired beauties (all of our 
pictures are of this character) are the equals of Hoppner’s blonder 
types, while in vividness of expression and momentariness of pose 
he goes still farther at times. The position of the little girl in the 
portrait of Mrs. Thomson and her Child and the two young women in 
the portraits of Lady Elizabeth and Maria Conyngham, are of an 
almost photographic naturalness, which the former generation of 
artists with their more restful poses had not yet expressed, but 
which was so much sought after by the artists of the XIX Century, 
though not always with equal success. 

Raeburn holds a position of his own and may be compared, in 
the simplification of his forms and the fluidity of his technic, to 
Romney, with whom he has in common the comparatively recent 
recognition of his remarkable art. His technic has been also com- 
pared with that of Frans Hals, but his brushwork, although it is 
of the same broadness, is less heavy and not so much in evidence, 
so that in the two marvelous portraits of Mrs. Grant of Kilgrasten 
and Mrs. Boswell it seems almost inconceivable that he is able to 
create such extroardinary effects with such an easy and invisible 
technic. His relation to the younger generation is obvious from 
his greater pictorial tendency, and in this way he forms almost a 
contrast to Romney, his compositions being built up not like 
Romney’s, upon lines, but upon light effects, through which he is 
able to give his portraits an astonishing spontaneity. The momen- 
tary expression of his faces with their shghtly open, almost speaking 
mouths, connects him with the generation of Lawrence and Hoppner, 
but his more simple and unaffected nature does not permit him to 
aim at their color effects. His subdued colors are combined with 
ereatest refinement, which may be seen in the portrait of Mrs. 
Andrew Hay in her white dress with the light blue cap, girdle and 
chair, against a warm autumn landscape. This picture shows 
that when he uses landscape backgrounds his understanding of 


nature manifests a decided advance over his predecessors in the 
direction of realism. His figures are actuallly sitting out of doors 
and are enveloped in the same warm light as the landscape. 

We have seen what an important part landscape painting played 
in English portrait painting in forming the background and sur- 
roundings of the sitters, and—that at least one of the great portrait- 
ists and perhaps the greatest of them all—Gainsborough—was also 
a landscape painter of eminence. Rich as the art of portraiture in 
England in its great period appears, with its variety of different 
temperaments, the panorama of this epoch becomes complete only 
through the addition of landscape art. The two greatest masters 
of landscape painting in England, Turner and Constable, contem- 
poraries of the younger generation of portrait painters, supplement 
one another in the most perfect manner, representing as they do 
the two sides of human character, the realistic and the idealistic. 
The variety of style and the development of these two prolific 
masters cannot be grasped unless many of their works are seen 
together. We have only attempted to give an idea of their character 
in the few examples shown in the exhibition. How imaginative 
Turner appears even when he paints directly from nature may be 
seen in the two water colours, one a view of Lucerne, the other of 
Florence, in which he adds an enormous, fantastic spacing to his 
representations, while the extraordinary power of phantasy of his 
last period creates such glorious compositions as The Deluge. 

Of Constable’s art, with its more intimate motives and intensity 
in observing nature, the view of The Glebe Farm and Salisbury 
Cathedral from the Bishop’s House, give a most delightful idea of 
his mature period, while his last phase is represented in the broadly 
painted Lock on the Stour, the period from which we may say all 
modern landscape begins. 

W. R. VALENTINER 





No. 27. SIR HENRY RAEBURN, R. A. 
Mrs. Andrew Hay 


THE DEVELOPMENT OF 
BRITISH PAINTING 


F we except the mediaeval manuscript iluminations and the 

moralities of Hogarth, we may say that the laurels of English 
painting have been won in two fields—those of protraiture and 
landscage. The English are comparative newcomers in the field 
of landscape, but their triumphs in portraiture date back to the 
Gothic period. The two famous portraits of Richard II are un- 
excelled by any contemporary European work. The Wars of the 
Roses, however, were disastrous to painting, and in the fourteen 
hundreds it almost disappeared. This was the century in which 
the Florentines were achieving their brilliant successes in the 
representation of movement and of the visible world—the century 
of Masaccio, Uccello, Pollaiuolo, Botticelli and Leonardo da Vinci; 
and, nearer home, Flanders.was producing a series of masters, such as 
the Van Eycks, Roger Van der Weyden and Memling. The English 
had no one to compare with these, and when Henry the Eighth, the 
one English king blest with the artistic temperament, ascended the 
throne in 1509, he can hardly have looked with satisfaction on the © 
condition of art in hiscountry. The great German painter, Holbein, 
was induced to come over, and he spent the last eleven years of 
his life in England. 

Holbein looked out in his detached way on the men and women 
of Tudor England, and produced such a life-like series of paintings 
and drawings that we seem to be almost as familiar with these 
inhabitants of 16th Century England as we are with our own con- 
temporaries. The figure of Holbein dominated English painting 
all through the fifteen hundreds, the great Tudor century, the days 
of Elizabeth. The most important English painters of this time 
were Hilliard and Isaac Oliver, whose portrait miniatures, while 
showing the influence of Holbein, show also a peculiarly English 
sense of elegance which foreshadows Van Dyck. And Samuel 
Cooper, who was born later and is the most eminent of all the minia- 
ture painters, expressed this spirit still more clearly. 

In 1603 Charles I came to the throne of England, and the need 
was felt for a court painter. Almost exactly a hundred years 
after Holbein had conquered England, the Flemish Van Dyek 
made another successful invasion of the island—so successful indeed 
that all English portrait painting in the future was to feel his 
influence. 


As an artist, Van Dyck was almost the opposite in temperament 
to Holbein. Holbein was not easily impressionable, and indeed, 
even if he had been, he would have found little in Tudor painting to 
influence him. The result was that he imposed a foreign style on 
English painting, a style, it is true, which the English ended by 
assimilating and making the vehicle for expressing their own idea 
of the world. But Van Dyck was a reed shaken by the wind. His 
exquisite sensibility was at the mercy of all influences. In his 
youth he painted like his master, Rubens, then he went to Genoa 
and developed a new style, and when, about 1630, he settled in 
England, he felt the spirit of the place at once—a spirit already 
embodied in some of the miniature painters—and he developed 
his English style, becoming the founder of English portrait painting. 
He died in 1641. Sir Peter Lely, a Dutchman, held the field until 
1680. After his death painting again fell into a decline. 

To anyone surveying the history, and speculating on the future 
of English painting, the prospect about the end of the first quarter 
of the 18th century must have looked dreary. The past showed 
two outstanding men of genius, both foreigners—a German and a 
Dutchman. The first had failed to found an enduring school, and 
the influence of the second had run into the sands after the death 
of Sir Peter Lely. No native school had shown any vitality. The 
only hope would seem to be in another foreigner. It was at this 
discouraging moment that the English bestirred themselves and 
produced a school of their own. 

Hogarth was born in 1697. About the end of the first third of 
the century he started painting and engraving those series of 
pictures for edification which have made his name famous. The 
best known of the series is the Marriage a la Mode, the original 
paintings for which are in the National Gallery in London. He was 
a prolific painter, and beside moral tales he produced admirable 
portraits and the enchanting sketch known as the Shrimp Girl. 
Hogarth is one of the most English of artists. He is the first 
master of painting on a large scale whom England had produced 
since the middle ages. His intrinsic importance can hardly be 
over-estimated, but he had little immediate effect on the course of 
events. The effective inventor of the English 18th Century por- 
trait was Sir Joshua Reynolds. 

Reynolds was born in 1723, and early he showed talent as an 
artist. About the middle of the century he spent three years in 
Italy—years devoted to an intensive study of the principles of de- 
sign employed by the old masters, and to an attempt to capture the 


secret of Venetian coloring. These studies influenced his future 
profoundly, and became the basis for the Discourses which he 
delivered in later years to the students at the Royal Academy. On 
his return to London he soon found himself the most popular 
portrait painter in the town, and when the Royal Academy was 
instituted in 1768 he was made its first president. In 1789 he was 
stricken with partial biindness and painted no more. 

Sir Joshua has been called the most gifted amateur that England 
ever produced, and there is an element of truth in this. He never 
seems quite to know, when he starts a picture, how it is going to 
turn out; his famous variety ‘‘Damn him, how various he is!” 
Gainsborough said of him-—comes partly from this uncertainty. 
At every new picture he is like a man who throws himself into deep 
water to learn how to swim, and sometimes there is more splashing 
than progress. Then his incessant preoccupation with processes, 
with the secrets of the Venetians, has something about it of the 
amateur’s pathetic humility and simplicity. His drawing is certainly 
not his strong point, and, though his color is often magnificent, 
his reckless experimentation with processes in order to obtain it, 
has led to the decay of many of his finest canvasses. But when all 
is said and done, he is a superb portrait painter, and has left a 
gallery of the men and women of his day which is unequalled in 
variety and charm and interest. The portraits are, no doubt, 
somewhat idealized, and his success depended no doubt to some 
extent on the fact that he presented his sitters under an aspect 
which they themselves found agreeable. The men look perhaps 
rather noble, they have more likeness to Stoic philosophers than 
it is given toso many English gentlemen and intellectuals to achieve. 
But the Englishman of the 18th Century cultivated the Roman 
virtues and saw himself, in his more imaginative moments, as a 
kind of Cato or Marcus Aurelius. And Sir Joshua’s women are 
goddesses. But this comes from no obsequious desire to flatter 
his sitters. Sir Joshua was the product of his century, and he saw 
the world, as all artists must see it, through the veil of his own 
temperament and his own desires. 

No one would venture to call his younger contemporary, Gains- 
borough, an amateur. He is one of the most accomplished techni- 
cians who ever painted. He is the least theoretical of artists. It 
was as if he looked at his sitter, and the portrait appeared on his 
canvas, he knew not how, called up by a breath, as it were, by a 
single gesture. No medium seems to exist between his conception 
and his execution. He has apparently nothing to struggle with. 


Paint is his natural language, and he has a fluency, an idiomatic 
quality, that is unsurpassed. It is interesting to note that Gains- 
borough was an enthusiast for music; in looking at his art we are 
irresistibly made to think of music. Nothing more lyrical exists 
than his portraits of women and children, and his landscapes, for he 
painted landscapes as well as portraits. The influence of Van Dyck 
on his vision is clearly perceptible. When he was on his death bed 
he had to reproach himself with having had ungenerous feelings 
towards his great rival, Sir Joshua, and desired to see him. His 
last words to him were ‘We are all going to heaven, and Van Dyck 
is of the company.” 

Romney in his day shared the popularity of Reynolds and 
Gainsborough. He immortalized the beauty of Emma Hamilton, 
and created a type of prettiness which still has its appeal. His 
portraits are admirably designed. His reputation has had its ups 
and downs. After his death he was entirely forgotten and interest 
in him has revived only recently. 

Hoppner was brought up in the shadow of royalty in St. James 
Palace, where his mother held some vaguely defined position. She 
was found to be taking bribes, was dismissed, and it devolved on 
the young John to support the family. A disciple of Reynolds, 
he later became successful as a painter of royalty and aristocracy, 
though the competition of Lawrence was always formidable. 

With Hoppner’s death in 1810, the tradition of Sir Joshua, the 
great tradition of the 18th Century, comes to an end. The new 
century had different ideals and was pleased by an art less con- 
sciously preoccupied with style. Lawrence was left master of the 
situation. 

At his best, Lawrence is an excellent portrait painter, and even 
when not at his best, he is usually a brilliant sketcher. In his later 
years he accepted too many commissions, and his work became | 
perfunctory. He died in 1830. 

Raeburn was in a sense the Sir Josua of Edinburgh. All the 
most remarkable men and women of the Scottish capital sat to 
him, and the Edinburgh National Gallery contains an unrivalled 
collection of his portraits. After the death of Hoppner he had 
ideas of settling in London, but the crafty Lawrence, who saw in 
his arrival a dangerous menace to his own supremacy, was able to 
dissuade him. He died in 18238. 

After the death of Lawrence, English figure painting was left 
without a head. The academic school produced individual painters 
of skill, like Etty, who painted exquisite nudes, but there was a 


want of purpose, of definite direction in their painting. By the 
middle of the century things had become so bad that it is not 
difficult to understand the feelings of the earnest-minded young 
men who constituted what they called the Pre-Raphaelite Brother- 
hood. The avowed object of this remarkable association was to 
return to the principles of painting as it was practiced before the 
advent of Raphael. It was a revolt against the inanities of academic 
painting. Whether the members of the Brotherhood, whose most 
talented members were Rossetti and Millais, knew very much 
about the painting before Raphael or of the work of Raphael him- 
self, may be doubted. But what they lacked in knowledge they 
made up in enthusiasm, and, aided by Ruskin’s persuasive pen, 
they gradually made their way. Pre-Raphaelism destroyed the 
tradition of English painting, and it established a new academism 
from which England has not even yet recovered. 

Beside portrait painting, the other great branch of English 
painting is landscape. The popularity of landscape painting is 
quite modern. It is indeed one of the effects of the Romantic 
movement and of the writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau. Richard 
Wilson, whowas born in 17138,has been called the Father of English 
landscape painting. 

Gainsborough painted many landscapes, which have the same 
lyrical charm as his portraits; but the sitters who entered his 
studio to have their portraits painted took no interest in such 
things and few were ever sold. 

The English landscape painter who has made the greatest name 
in the history of art is Turner. He was born and bred in London. 
Ruskin devoted much of his long life and indefatigable eloquence 
to an explanation of his works, and even to-day it is hard not to be 
influenced in our opinions by the enormous torrent of words that 
has been poured over us. Turner gradually perfected a remarkable 
power of seizing and noting down the facts of nature. His youthful 
paintings are vast storehouses of facts; and this ability never 
deserted him. In later life he developed a feverish and exasperated 
style in which his imagination is given rein; and sometimes he 
produced canvasses that contain hardly any recognizable forms, 
scarcely more than clotted masses of jewel-like paint. So careless 
was he of his methods and materials that many of these pictures 
are now in the last stages of decay, and we can form only a dim idea 
of what they may once have been. His output was enormous, 
and beside his oil paintings the public collections of England possess 
many thousands of water-color drawings, which are among the 


most characteristic things he ever produced. Indeed Turner was 
naturally a water-color painter, and much of the quality of his 
later oil painting comes from his attempt to force his medium to 
acquire the qualities of water-color. 

Constable was Turner’s younger contemporary. He spent his 
youth in East Anglia, in Suffolk, and is the first English landscape 
painter to look at nature without regard to the traditions of the 
past. He is the most realistic of landscape painters—the first 
to whom the visible world has been enough. Indeed the sharp- 
ness of his observation increased as the years went by, and his later 
work is sometimes disturbing in its insistence on the glitter of 
reflected lights. His work was exhibited in Paris in 1821, and the 
effect it had on Delacroix and through him on the French landscape 
school was immense. More than any one master he created modern 
landscape art. 

Water-color landscape has always been a peculiarly English art. 
All through the 18th Century the topographical draughtsmen had 
driven their trade, often producing delightful work. Cozens and 
Girtin raised this craft to a higher level, and painted works in 
which the temperament of the artist is expressed. Girtin was 
Turner’s master in the art; and the Norwich school produced a 
great master in the person of John Sell Cotman, who died in poverty 
in 1842. 

What have been the principal qualities of English art? It has 
been by turns moral, lyrical, psychological and other things, but 
its sense for structure and the logic of form has never been strong; 
it has not been interested in the great problems of classic art, and 
its essays in the grand style have been unfortunate. It has been 
best when simplest and most direct, when it has kept close to the 
model and attempted no superb flights. There is no English 
Michelangelo or Poussin or Cezanne. The English painters have 
fought in few of the great battles of the spirit, and when they have, 
they have been defeated. Benjamin Haydon was convinced that 
his was the hand destined to bring back the great tradition of the 
High Renaissance, that he was to be the Raphael of a new dis- 
pensation. He committed suicide and there remains of him a 
fascinating autobiography. It is to Sir Joshua,the portrait painter 
and the interpreter of the charm of childhood, the attractive 
colorist, that we turn, rather than to the emulator of Michelangelo 
and ‘the Bolognese. And Turner’s slighter water colors and early 
oil paintings will probably have a meaning for us when his more 
heroic canvasses have become as sounding brass. 


The art of the 18th Century in England was perfectly adapted 
to the life it was intended to adorn. Those were not the days of 
great public decorations. The English needed pictures to hang up, 
preferably portraits of the family,—pictures which they could feel 
at home with. And the furniture, silver and paintings, all became 
expressions of one spirit, translations, as it were, of the same 
message into different dialects. And a similar spirit expresses itself 
in literature, in the works of Chesterfield or Hume or Gibbon. It 
is not every product of the time that is possessed by this spirit, 
and, on the other hand, work from a different century may be in- 
formed by it. Parmigianino and Baroccio are artists of the 16th 
century but their art smells of the 18th. 

What is the 18th Century spirit? It is an impalpable thing, 
easy to become aware of but hard to seize. It would probably not 
be difficult to instance works undoubtedly inspired by it, which yet 
refused to enter the frame of any definition that might be proposed. 
But if we feel that the 18th Century has in it anything that is 
essential for us, we shall do well to glance at the generalizations of 
the text books, listen respectfully when they speak of the rational- 
ism of the 18th Century, the elegance, the prettiness, or whatever 
it may be—glance at these approximations, be duly grateful and 
pass them by, to steep ourselves in the masterpieces themselves. 
In this way the reality may become our own, the spirit may speak 
to our spirit in its own words and in its own way, and, slowly 
perhaps, we may come to understand. The rest is of less conse- 
quence—a matter for connoisseurs and historians. 


J. Hopr-JOHNSTONE 





No. 14. JOHN HOPPNER, R. A 
Miss Selina Beresford 





JOHN CONSTABLE, R. A. 


Born at East Bergholt in Suffolk in 1776; died at London in 1837. Learned 
etching under John Thomas Smith, the engraver. In 1797 took up his father’s 
business of a miller but in 1799 turned to art again, entering the schools of the 
Royal Academy. From 1800 to 1802 studied and sketched directly from nature. 
In 1819 he was elected an Associate of the Royal Academy and in 1829 an Acade- 
mician. Constable influenced the work of the continental landscape painters of 
the XIX Century, and modern realistic landscape painting may be said to have 
begun with him. 


1. SALISBURY CATHEDRAL, FROM THE BISHOP’S GARDEN. 
Canvas: 35 inches by 443%¢ inches. 


Described by C. R. Leslie in ‘‘Memoirs of the Life of John Constable, Esq., 
R. A.,” 1843, page 90; by C. J. Holmes in “Constable and his Influence on Land- 
seape Painting,’ 1902, pages 231 and 246; by C. Reginald Grundy in ‘‘The 
Connoisseur,” Vol. 35 (1913), pages 73-4. 


Exhibited at Agnew’s Annual Loan Exhibition, London, 1907, No. 26; Inter- 
national Fine Arts Exhibition, Rome, 1911, No. 15 (lent by Sir Joseph Beecham) . 


From the collections of Mr. Davis of Manchester and Wicken Hall, Hinckley; 
Mr. Foxwell, 1907; Sir Joseph Beecham. 


Lent by M. Knoedler and Company, New York 


JOHN CONSTABLE, R. A. 
(Continued) 
2. THE LOCK ON THE STOUR. 
Canvas: 241% inches by 30 inches. 
Lent by Mr. Julius H. Haass, Detroit 





No. 4. THOMAS GAINSBOROUGH, R. A. 


Anna, Duchess of Hamilton, Countess of DoneZall 


JOHN CONSTABLE, R. A. 


(Continued) 


3. THE GLEBE FARM, DEDHAM. 
Canvas: 181% inches by 24 inches. 
Lent by Mr. Joseph. B. Schlotman, Detroit 


THOMAS GAINSBOROUGH, R. A. 


Born at Sudbury in 1727; died at London in 1788. At age of fifteen studied 
etching under Gravelot. Spent three years at Martins Lane Academy under 
Francis Hayman. Was one of the original members of the Royal Academy at its 
opening in 1768. Favorite painter of the King and Boe Family. Painter of 
portraits and landscapes. 


4. ANNE, DUCHESS OF HAMILTON, COUNTESS OF DONEGALL. 


Canvas: 605 inches by 921% inches. 

Mentioned in Sir Walter Armstrong’s “Gainsborough and his Place in English 
Art,’ 1898, page 197. 

Exhibited at the Royal Academy Winter Exhibition, London, 1877. 


From the collection of Baron Templemore, D. 8. O., Dunbrody Park, Arthurs- 
town, County Wexford, Ireland. 


Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen, New York 





No. 5. THOMAS GAINSBOROUGH, R. A. 
William and John Truman-Villekois 


THOMAS GAINSBOROUGH, R. A. 


(Continued) 


5. WILLIAM AND JOHN TRUMAN-VILLEBOIS. 


Canvas: 4 feet 3 inches, by 5 feet 1 inch. 
Mentioned in Sir Walter Armstrong’s “Gainsborough,” page 203. 


Exhibited at the Royal Academy (Old Masters) 1878, and at the Grosvenor 
Gallery, 1885. 


From the collection of Henry Villebois, Esq. 
Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 


Lent by Mr. Carll Tucker, New York 


THOMAS GAINSBOROUGH, R. A. 


(Continued) 


6. RICHARD PAUL JODRELL. 


‘Canvas: 2414 inches by 29 inches. 
From the collection of the late George Harland-Peck, Esq., London. 


Formerly an heirloom of the Jodrell family and later in the collection of Joseph 
Ruston, Esq., Lincoln. 


Mentioned in Sir Walter Armstrong’s ‘‘Gainsborough,” page 270. 


Detroit private collection. 





No. 9. THOMAS GAINSBOROUGH, R. A. 


A Landscape with a Bridge 


THOMAS GAINSBOROUGH, R. A. 
(Continued) 


7. THE HON. RICHARD SAVAGE NASSAU DE ZUYLESTEIN. 
Canvas: 60 inches by 94 inches. 


Mentioned (as James, Fifth Duke of Hamilton) in Sir Walter Armstrong’s 
“Gainsborough and his Place in English Art’’, 1898, page 197. 


Exhibited at the Royal Academy Winter Exhibition, London, 1877. 


From the Collection of Baron Templemore, D. 8. O., Dunbrody Park, Arthurs- 
town, County Wexford, Ireland. 


Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen, New York 


THOMAS GAINSBOROUGH, R. A. 


(Continued) 


8. PORTRAIT OF THE TWO CHILDREN OF MRS. GODDARD. 
~ Painted in 1788. 
Canvas: 421% inches by 6314 inches. 


From the collection of Sir Robert Sloper, K. B., Commander in Chief in India. 
On the death of General Sloper it passed to his son and then to his brother, the 
Rev. David Williams, D. C. L., who left it to his eldest daughter, Emily, with the 
reversion to his son the Rev. Henry Blackstone Williams, who bequeathed it to his 
son, the recent owner. This picture is said to have been the last one painted by 
Gainsborough. 

Lent by Mr. Colin Agnew, New York 


THOMAS GAINSBOROUGH, R. A. 


(Continued) 


9. A LANDSCAPE WITH A BRIDGE. 


Canvas: 465 inches by 52 inches. 

From the collection of Lord D’Abernon, Ambassador to the Court of St. James 
at Berlin. 

Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 


New York private collection. 


JOHN HOPPNER, R. A. 


Born at Whitechapel in 1758; died in London in 1810. Entered Royal Academy 
as a student in 1775. In 1789 was appointed portrait painter to the Prince of 
Wales. In 1792 was elected an Associate of the Royal Academy and in 1795 a ful 
Academician. Exhibited only in Royal Academy where he was represented by 1681 
pictures in all. Painter of portraits and a few fanciful subjects. 


10. PORTRAIT OF LADY BAGOT. 
Painted in 1807. 


Canvas: 25 inches by 30 inches. 
Engraved in mezzotint by J. C. Webb, 1904. 


Exhibited in P. and D. Colnaghi’s Gallery, London, 1904, No. 11 (lent by 
Colonel Bagot, M. P.) 


Catalogued and reproduced in McKay and Roberts’s “John Hoppner, R. A.’’ 
London, 1914, page 10. 


From the collection of Sir Alan Desmond Bagot, Bart., of Levens Hall, Miln- 
thorpe, Westmoreland. 


Acquired from M. Knoedler & Company. 
Lent by Mr. John B. Ford, Detroit 


JOHN HOPPNER, R. A. 


(Continued) 


11. MOTHER AND CHILD. 
Canvas: 25 inches by 30 inches. 


Lent by Mr. Ralph H. Booth. Detroit, 


JOHN HOPPNER, R. A. 


(Continued) 


12. A YOUNG GIRL WITH TAMBOURINE. 


Canvas: 56 inches by 92 inches. 


Reproduced in Sir Martin Conway’s “Great Masters from 1400 to 1900’, 
London. 


From the collection of Arthur de Pass, Esq.; formerly in that of Sir Edward 
Sullivan. 


Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 


Lent by Mr. E. T. Stotesbury, Philadelphia 


JOHN HOPPNER, R. A. 


(Continued) 


13. MISS FRANCES BERESFORD. 


Canvas: 25 inches by 30 inches. 
Engraved in mezzotint by J. B. Pratt, 1900. 


Illustrated in photogravure in McKay and Roberts’s “John Hoppner, R. A.”, 
London, 1914, page 21, and in half-tone in Sir Walter Armstrong’s ‘‘Art in Great 
Britain,’’ London, 1909, page 195. 


Exhibited at the Royal Academy (Old Masters), London, 1893, No. 47. 


From the collection of Marcus Trevelyan Martin, Esq., London. Formerly in 
the collection of Rev. Samuel Martin, Rector of Worksop, Nottingham, who be- 
queathed it to his son, Major William Martin, whose daughter inherited it after 
him; this lady in turn left it to her brother, the late owner. 


Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen, New York 


JOHN HOPPNER, R. A. 


(Continued) 


14. MISS SELINA BERESFORD. 


Canvas: 265 inches by 30 inches. 

Engraved in mezzotint by J. B. Pratt, 1900. 

Illustrated in photogravure in McKay and Roberts’s “John Hoppner, R. A. 
London, 1914, page 165, and in half-tone in Sir Walter Armstrong’s ‘‘Art in Great 
Britain,” London, 1909, page 196. 

Exhibited at the Royal Academy (Old Masters), London, 1893, No. 23. 

From the colllection of Marcus Trevelyan Martin, Esq., London. Formerly in ~ 
the collection of the Rev. Samuel Martin, Rector of Worksop, Nottingham, who 
bequeathed it to his son, Major William Martin, whose daughter inherited it after 
him; this lady in turn left it to her brother, the late owner. 


Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen, New York 


JOHN HOPPNER, R. A. 


(Continued) 


15. SIR THOMAS HARDWICKE, English Architect. 
Canvas: 25 inches by 30 inches. 


In the collection of The Detroit Institute of Arts 


JOHN HOPPNER, R. A. 


(Continued) 


16. THE HON. CHARLOTTE CHETWYND. 


Painted in 1796. 

Canvas: 40 inches by 50 inches. 

Described in McKay and Roberts’s ‘John Hoppner, R. A.,”’ London, 1914, 
page 49. 

Exhibited at the Royal Academy, London, 1798, No. 45; and at Burlington 
House, Old Masters Exhibition, London, 1906, No. 64. 


From the collection of W. C. Cartwright, Esq., Aynhoe Park, Banbury, Ox- 
fordshire. 
Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 


Lent by Mr. B. F. Jones, Pittsburgh 





No. 20 SIR THOMAS LAWRENCE, R. A. 


Lady Elizabeth Conyngham 


JOHN HOPPNER, R. A. 


(Continued) 


17. LITTLE RED RIDING HOOD. 
Canvas: 241% inches by 291% inches. 
Acquired from the Howard Young Galleries. 


Lent by Mr. Joseph B. Schlotman, Detroit. 


SIR THOMAS LAWRENCE, R. A. 


Born in Bristol in 1769; died in London in 1830. Made Associate of the Royal 
Academy at age of twenty-one. At age of twenty-five was elected full Academi- 
clan. Knighted by the Prince Regent in 1815. From 1816 to 1820 made tour of 
Europe, painting the portraits of many prominent people. In 1820 he returned to 
London to find himself elected President of the Royal Academy. Member of the 
American Academy of Fine Arts; Academy of St. Luke; Academies of Vienna, 
Florence, Venice, Copenhagen and Bologna. Painter of portraits. 


18. PORTRAIT OF MRS. BEWICKE. 
Canvas: 25 inches by 30 inches. 
Recorded in Sir Walter Armstrong’s ‘‘Lawrence”’ under the name of Berwick; 


and in Lord Ronald Gower’s “Life of Sir Thomas Lawrence’’. 


Lent by Mr. John B. Ford, Detroit 


SIR THOMAS LAWRENCE, R. A. 


(Continued) 


19. MRS. THOMSON AND HER CHILD. 


Canvas: 58 inches by 88 inches. 
Exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1804. 


Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 


Lent by Mr. E. T. Stotesbury, Philadelphia 


SIR THOMAS LAWRENCE, R. A. 
(Continued) 


20. LADY ELIZABETH CONYNGHAM. 
Canvas: 40 inches by 50 inches. 
Engraved by Richard Smyth. 
Mentioned in Sir Walter Armstrong’s ‘‘Lawrence.”’ 


Formerly in the collection of the Marquess Conyngham at Slane Castle, County 
Meath, Ireland. 


Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 


Lent by Mr. E. T. Stotesbury, Philadelphia 


SIR THOMAS LAWRENCE, R. A. 
(Continued) 


Zi. MRS. G. F. STRATTON. 


Painted in 1811. 
Canvas: 583%4 inches by 94 inches. 
Engraved by Charles Turner, A. R. A., and published as ‘““A Lady and Dog.”’ 


Recorded in Sir Walter Armstrong’s “Lawrence’’, page 165, London, 1913; 
Lord Ronald Sutherland Gower’s “Sir Thomas Lawrence’’, page 161; Alfred 
Whitman’s “Nineteenth Century Mezzotinters: Charles Turner’, London, 1917. 


Exhibited at the Royal Academy, 1811. 


From the collection of the descendants of George Frederick Stratton, Esq., 
of Great Tew, Oxford. 


Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen, New York. 


SIR THOMAS LAWRENCE, R. A. 


(Continued) 


22. LADY MARIA CONYNGHAM. 


Canvas: 28 inches by 36 inches. 
Engraved by Norman Hurst. 
Mentioned in Sir Walter Armstrong’s ‘“‘Lawrence’’. 


Formerly in the collection of Marquess Conyngham at Slane Castle, County 
Meath, Ireland. 


Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 


Lent by Mr. E. T. Stotesbury, Philadelphia 


SIR THOMAS LAWRENCE, R. A. 


(Continued) 


23. MRS. WILLIAM LOCKE. 


Canvas: 40 inches by 50 inches. 
Described in Sir Walter Armstrong’s ‘“‘Lawrence’’, London, 1913, page 147. 


From the collection of M. Eugene Fischof, Paris. Formerly in the collection of 
Lord Wallscourt, Aldfry, County Galway, Ireland, who inherited it from his 
mother, Lady Wallscourt, only daughter of Mrs. Locke of Norbury Park. 


Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen, New York 


SIR THOMAS LAWRENCE, R. A. 


(Continued) 


24. THE KING OF ROME, SON OF NAPOLEON I. 
Canvas: 13 inches by 14 inckes. 


Lent by Mr. Ralph H. Booth, Detroit 


SIR HENRY RAEBURN, R. A. 


Born in Stockbridge, Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1756; died there in 1823. At age 
of fifteen was apprenticed to an Edinburgh goldsmith and jeweler and later studied 
for a short time with David Martin, the leading portrait painter in the city. In - 
1785 he went to London where he met Reynolds in whose studio he is said to have 
worked for a few weeks and by whom he was advised to go to Rome, where he 
spent two years. He returned to Edinburgh in 1787 where he became the leading 
portrait painter in Scotland. It is estimated that he painted over one thousand 
portraits. He was elected an Associate of the Royal Academy in 1812 and full 
Academician in 1815. 


25. PORTRAIT OF PROFESSOR ANDREW DALZEL, F. R. 8. 


Painted in 1797 or 1798. 

Canvas: 391% inches by 4934 inches. 

Engraved by R. C. Bell, 1862. 

Exhibitedin the Loan Exhibition of Old Masters, San Francisco, No. 119. 


From the collection of the late Surgeon Major W. F. B. Dalzel, grandson of 
Professor Andrew Dalzel. 


~ Lent by M. Knoedler and Company, New York 


SIR HENRY RAEBURN, R. A. 


(Continued) 


26. THE HON. MRS. GRANT OF KILGRASTEN. 


Canvas: 24 inches by 30 inches. 

Mentioned in Sir Walter Armstrong’s “Sir Henry Raeburn’, London, 1901, 
page 103; Greig’s “Sir Henry Raeburn, R. A.”, London, 1911, page 47. 

Exhibited at the French Gallery, London, 1911, and illustrated in the catalogue, 


No. 9. 
Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen, New York 





No. 33. SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS, P. R. A. 
The Strawberry Girl 


SIR HENRY RAEBURN, R. A. 


(Continued) 


27. MRS. ANDREW HAY. 


Canvas: 391% inches by 481% inches. 


Formerly in the collection of Commander Thomas Edward Hall Maxwell, R. N., 
great grandson of General and Mrs. Hay. 


Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 


Lent by Mr. E. T. Stotesbury, Philadelphia 


SIR HENRY RAEBURN, R. A. 


(Continued) 


28. MRS. IRVINE J. BOSWELL. 


Painted about 1820. 

Canvas: 25 inches by 30 inches. 

Engraved by Norman Hurst. 

Illustrated and mentioned in Sir Walter Armstrong’s “Sir Henry Raeburn’, 
London, 1901, page 96, pl. L.; James L. Caw’s “Portraits of Sir Henry Raeburn’’, 
London, 1909, page 13; mentioned in James Greig’s ‘Sir Henry Raeburn, R. A.’, 
London, 1911, page 39. 

Exhibited at the French Gallery, London, 1911, and illustrated in the catalogue, 
Now 11: 

~- From the collection of Colonel Walter Brown, of Renfrew. Formerly in that of 
J. Irvine Fortesque, Esq. 


Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen, New York 





No. 34. SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS, P. R. A. 
The Holy Family 


SIR HENRY RAEBURN, R. A. 


(Continued) 


29. THE HON. HENRY DAVID ERSKINE, XII EARL OF BUCHAN 


Canvas: 40 inches by 50 inches. 
Mentioned in Sir Walter Armstrong’s “Life of Raeburn’, page 101. 
Exhibited at Grafton Gallery, Scottish Old Masters, 1895. 


In the collection of the Detroit Institute of Arts. 


SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS, P. R. A. 


Born at. Plympton in Devonshire, in 1723; died in London in 1792. Went to 
London in 1740 where he studied under Thomas Hudson, the best known portrait 
painter of the time. In 1749 he went to Rome where he remained for two years. 
He returned to London in 1752 and established himself as a portrait painter, 
painting portraits of wealthy society people as well as many members of the Royal 
Family. Helped to organize the Royal Academy and was elected its first president 
in 1769, a position which he continued to fill until his death. 


30. THE TWO CHILDREN OF BENJAMIN VAN DER GUCHT AS 
“THE CHILDREN IN THE WOOD”. 
Engraved by J. Caldwell and 8S. W. Reynolds. 
Canvas: 2514 inches by 30 inches. 
Catalogued in ‘‘Reynolds” by Graves and Cronin, 1901, Vol. IV, page 1426, and 
in Vol. II, page 596, and in ‘‘Reynolds” by Sir Walter Armstrong, 1900, page 238. 
Mentioned in ‘‘Reynolds”’ by Leslie and Taylor, 1865, pages 481 and 484. 


From the collections of Benjamin Van der Gucht, for whom it was painted; 
Wynn Ellis, Esq.; Brodie A. Willcox, Esq.; Gen. Benjamin Van der Gucht; Gen. 
Thomas Van der Gucht; the Misses Van der Gucht. 


Lent by M. Kncedler and Company, New York 


SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS, P. R. A. 


(Continued) 


31. SIR BROOKE BOOTHBY, BART. 


Canvas: 24 inches by 29 inches. 

Engraved by J. R. Smith, 1797. 

Catalogued in Sir Walter Armstrong’s ‘“‘Reynolds’’, page 195. 

Exhibited in the Derby (Midland Counties) Exhibition, 1870. 
In the collection of The Detroit Institute of Arts. 


SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS, P. R. A. 


(Continued) 


32. THE HON. THERESA PARKER. 


Painted in 1787. 
Canvas: 25 inches by 30 inches. 
Engraved by Norman Hurst. 


Exhibited at the Grafton Galleries, London, 1895, No. 100, and again in 1913-14 
(Exhibition of Woman and Child in Art), No. 21. 
From the collection of the Right Hon. Earl of Morley, Saltran Manor, Plymp- 
ton, Devonshire. 
Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen, New York 


SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS, P. R. A. 


(Continued) 


33. THE STRAWBERRY GIRL. 
Painted in 1773. 
Canvas: 24 inches by 29 inches. 
Engraved by T. Watson, 1774, and R. Marcuard. 


Mentioned in James Northcote’s “Life of Sir Joshua Reynolds’, Vol. II, page 7, 
1813, and in Leslie and Taylor’s “Life of Reynolds’’, Vol. 2, page 3, 1865. 


Exhibited at the Grosvenor Gallery, London, 1884, No. 86. 

Originally in the collection of Lady George Gordon who bequeathed it to Major, 
afterwards Colonel Copley Wray. 

Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 


Lent by Mrs. Francis F. Prentiss, Cleveland 


SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS, P. R. A. 


(Continued) 


G47 Loe HOLY FAMILY. 


Canvas: 57 inches by 77 inches. 
From the collection of the late William Angerstein, Esq., Weeting Hall, Norfolk. 


Lent by Mr. H. E. Huntington, San Marino, California 





No. 36. GEORGE ROMNEY 


Captain William Kirkpatrick 


GEORGE ROMNEY 


Born at Walton-le-Furness, Lancashire, in 1734; died at Ulverston, 1802. Ap- 
prenticed to the painter, Christopher Steele, in 1755. After 1763 he became, with 
Reynolds and Gainsborough, one of the most popular portrait painters of his day. 
In 1773 he went to Italy where he remained for two years. Returned to London 
in 1775 and during the next twenty years painted over 2000 portraits. 


35. BARBARA, MARCHIONESS OF DONEGALL. 


Painted in 1792. 
Canvas: 5814 inches by 9434 inches. 


Mentioned in Humphrey Ward and W. Roberts’s ‘‘“Romney, a Biographical and 
Critical Essay’, Vol. II, page 45. 

From the collection of Baron Templemore, D. 8. O., Dunbrody Park, Arthurs- 
town, County Wexford, Ireland. 


Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen, New York 


GEORGE ROMNEY 


(Continued) 


36. CAPTAIN WILLIAM KIRKPATRICK. 


Painted in 1785. 
Canvas: 40 inches by 50 inches. 
Described in Ward and Roberts’s ““Romney’’, Vol. II, 1904, page 99. 


From the collection of Sir Henry Strachey, Bart., Sutton Court, Pensford, 
Somerset. Bequeathed by General Kirkpatrick to his daughter Lady Louis, from 
whom it passed to her daughter, Miss Maria Louis, who gave the picture to Sir 
Edward Strachey, Bart., whose mother was a daughter of General Kirkpatrick. 


Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 


Lent by Mr. B. F. Jones, Pittsburgh 





No. 38. GEORGE ROMNEY 
Richard Brinsley Sheridan 


GEORGE ROMNEY 


(Continued) 


37. LADY BEAUCHAMP-PROCTOR. 
Painted in 1782-83. 
Canvas: 58 inches by 93 inches. 


Described and illustrated in Ward and Roberts’s “Romney” Vol. II, page 127, 
plate facing same page; mentioned and illustrated in Spielmann’s “British 
Portrait Painting’’, Vol. II, page 12, plate 70; illustrated in Sir Walter Armstrong’s 
‘‘Art in Great Britain’’, London, 1909, page 189. 


Exhibited at the Royal Academy (Old Masters Exhibition), London, 1878, 
No. 137, and in 1888, No. 157. 


From the collection of E. L. Raphael, Esq., Connaught Place, London, W. 
Formerly in the collection of Sir Reginald Beauchamp-Proctor and afterwards in 
that of Lord Burton. 


Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen, New York 


GEORGE ROMNEY 


(Continued) 


38. RICHARD BRINSLEY SHERIDAN, celebrated Irish orator and dram- 
atist. (1751-1816). 


Canvas: 52 inches by 87 inches. 


Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 


Lent by the George J. Gould Estate, New York 





No. 40. GEORGE ROMNEY 
John Walter Tempest 


GEORGE ROMNEY 


(Continued) 


39. WILLIAM BECKFORD. 


Canvas: 52 inches by 64 inches. 


Described and illustrated by H. Avary Tipping in “Country Life’, London, 
October 25, 1919, pages 514-516. 


From the collection of the late Duke of Hamilton, Hamilton Palace, Lanark- 
shire, Scotland. 


Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 


Lent by Mr. E. T. Stotesbury, Philadelphia 


GEORGE ROMNEY 


(Continued) 


40. JOHN WALTER TEMPEST. 


Painted in 1780. 
Canvas: 58 inches by 91 inches. 
_ Engraved in mezzotint by James Walker, 1781. 


Illustrated and described in M. H. Spielmann’s “British Portrait Painting,” 
Vol. II, 1910, page 8, pl. 76; “Exhibition of Old Masters’, Berlin, 1908, No. 85, 
pl. 41; and by A. Grisebach in “Die Kunst ftir Alle’. April 1908, frontispiece. 
Described in H. Ward and W. Roberts’s “Rommey’”’; Catalogue Raisonné’’, 
Vol. II, 1904, page 155. 


Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 
Lent by Mrs. Marshall Field, Long Island 


GEORGE ROMNEY 


(Continued) 


41. MRS. BRACEBRIDGE AND DAUGHTER. 


Painted 1781-1784. 
Canvas: 4 feet by 5 feet 2 inches. 


Mentioned in A. Davidson’s ‘‘A History of the Holtes of Aston,’ 1854, and 
described in Ward and Roberts’s ‘‘Romney,” Vol. II, pages 16-17, 1904. 


From the collection of the Rev. Prebendary Compton, Atherstone Hall, War- 
wickshire, who succeeded to the estate of C. Holte Bracebridge, Esq., in 1872. 


Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 


Lent by Mr. E. Stotesbury, Philadelphia. 


GEORGE ROMNEY 


(Continued) 


42. MISS KITTY CALCRAFT. 


Painted in 1787 or 1788. 
Canvas: 39 inches by 49 inches. 


Described in Ward and Roberts’s ‘““Romney’’, Vol. II, page 23; and mentioned 
in Sir Herbert Maxwell’s ‘‘George Romney’’, 1902, page 172. 


Exhibited at the Royal Academy, 1895, No. 3. 
From the collection of W. M. Calcraft, Esq., Rampston, Corfe Castle, Dorset; 
afterward in that of the late Edward Marston, Esq., F. R. G.S., Adelphi, London. 


Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen, New York 


GEORGE ROMNEY 
(Continued) 


43. EMMA, LADY HAMILTON, AS “MIRTH”. 


Painted in 1791. 
Canvas: 4514 inches by 564% inches. 
Engraved by J. B. Pratt in mezzotint, 1905. 


Mentioned in Ward and Roberts’s ‘“Romney”’, Vol. II, page 181; Arthur B. 
Chamberlain’s ‘““Romney Folio’, London, 1911; illustrated in E. Hallam Moor- 
house’s ‘‘Nelson’s Lady Hamilton’’, London, 1908, page 24. 

Exhibited at the Agnew Galleries, London, 1904, No. 20. 

From the collection of Thomas William, First Earl of Lichfield, Orgreave Hall, 
Lichfield; afterward in the collections of John Christian Carwen, Esq., York; 
Thomas Challoner, Esq., Chester; Charles J. Wertheimer, Esq., London; and 
E. G. Raphael, Esq., London. 


Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen, New York. 


GEORGE ROMNEY 


(Continued) 


44. THOMAS GROVE, OF FERN, WILTS. 
1759-1847. 


Painted in 1788. 

Canvas: 39 inches by 49 inches. 

Described in Ward and Roberts’s ‘“Romney’’, page 67. 
Exhibited in Old Masters Exhibition, 1881, No. 11. 
From the collection of Sir Thomas F. Grove, Fern, Wilts. 


Lent by Mr. John B. Ford, Detroit 


GEORGE ROMNEY 


(Continued) 


45. PORTRAIT OF THE PAINTER, J. M. W. TURNER. 
Canvas: 24 inches by 29 inches. 
Formerly in the possession of the Turner family. 
Acquired from Thomas Agnew and Sons. 
Lent by Mrs. John 8. Newberry, Detroit 


GEORGE ROMNEY 


(Continued) 


46. COLONEL JAMES CLITHEROW 


Painted in 1784. 
Canvas: 25 inches by 30 inches 
Mentioned in Ward and Roberts’s ‘‘Romney’’, pages 30-31. 


From the collection of Dr. Clarence Cooper, Egglesfield House, Brentford 
Butts, Middlesex, England. Formerly in that of the Clitherow Family, Boston 
House, Brentford, Middlesex, England. 


Detroit private collection 


GEORGE ROMNEY 


(Continued) 


47. OLIVER GOLDSMITH. 
Canvas: 241% inches by 2914 inches. 
Catalogued in Ward and Roberts’s ‘““Romney’’, page 61. 
Exhibited at Old Masters Exhibition, London, 1877, No. 275. 
Acquired from Wildenstein and Company, New York. 


Lent by Mr. Julian Harris, Detroit 


JOSEPH MALLORD WILLIAM TURNER, R. A. 


Born in London in 1775; died there in 1851. Studied perspective under T. 
Malton, architecture from Mr. Hardwick, water color drawing from Dr. Monro, 
and painting in oils for a short period under Sir Joshua Reynolds. In 1789 he 
became a student of the Royal Academy. In 1899 he was elected an Associate 
Member of the Academy and in 1802 an Academician. In 1819 he made a trip 
to Italy which had a great influence on his work, particularly his use of color. 
Painter of landscapes in oils and water colors and of numerous sketches. 


48. THE DELUGE. 


Painted in 18438. 
Canvas: 2934 inches by 2934 inches. 
Described in Sir Walter Armstrong’s ‘Life of Turner’. 


Lent by Mr. Howard Young, New York 


JOSEPH MALLORD WILLIAM TURNER, R. A. 


(Continued) 


49. LUCERNE. 
Water color: 12 inches by 1814 inches. 
Lent by Mr. Joseph B. Schlotman, Detroit 


JOSEPH MALLORD WILLIAM TURNER R. A. 


(Continued) 


49a. FLORENCE. 
Water color: 13 inches by 20 inches. 
Lent by Mr. Joseph B. Schlotman, Detroit 


SIR ANTHONY VAN DYCK 


Born at Antwerp in 1599; died at London in 1641. Pupil of Hendrik van 
Balen from 1609, later of Rubens, with whom he lived for about four years. He 
was still acting as Rubens’s assistant in 1620, although he had been admitted as 
master to the Antwerp Corporation of Painters in 1618. From 1623 to 1628 he 
visited Italy, dividing his time between Venice, Genoa and Rome. In 1628 he 
returned to Antwerp and about 1630 to 1631 he went to England, where he had 
been once before, in 1621. In 1632 he settled for the remainder of his life in 
England, where his very successful career as a portrait painter enabled him to 
live in great style. 


50. SIR ROBERT RICH, Second Earl of Warwick. 


Canvas: 49 inches by 83 inches. 

Exhibited at the Royal Academy, 1877 and 1893. 

From the collection of Major the Honorable Thomas G. Breadalbane Morgan- 
Grenville-Gavin, M. C., Longton, Duns, Scotland. Formerly owned by John, 
Second Marquis of Breadalbane, and bequeathed by him to his sister, Lady 
Elizabeth Pringle, from whom it descended to her daughter, the Hon. Mrs. 
Baillie Hamilton, and thence to her sister, Magdalen Breadalbane, Lady Harvey, 
who in turn left it to Major Gavin. 


Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 


Lent by Mr. Jules S. Bache, New York. 


‘ 
. 
ed 
: 


res 























ae A 
‘ * 
| y ; hah 
; , | é | 
; : 
=) ! ; 
L s 
; i 
; } 








